lucene at mikemccandless
Jun 11, 2009, 1:25 PM
Post #2 of 5
(422 views)
Permalink
|
|
Re: Performance: Field.Store.YES vs. Field.Store.NO + DB
[In reply to]
|
|
You should try it & see & post back.
When using Lucene, you should sort by docID and then retrieve in that order.
There's also another open source project (don't remember the name)
that aims to be a store for cases like this. There was an
announcement a while back... would be a 3rd option to try.
Please post back results if you get that far!
Mike
On Thu, Jun 11, 2009 at 3:00 PM, ywlee522<ywlee522[at]gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> My document store has 750K users who wrote 100M reports. The size of a
> report ranges from 1k to 2M.
> I have read in several places that actual values (text) can be stored in DB,
> while lucene only manages index with Field.Store.NO
>
> I wonder any differences in performance (search and match retrieval) between
> Field.Store.YES and NO values. For example, if actual report contents are
> stored in a DB (Field.Store.NO), given a search that matches 500 reports,
> one has to send either 500 SELECT queries to DB, or one long SELECT with IN
> clause in WHERE condition. Or something in between. Is this faster than
> retrieving them from index created with Field.Store.YES.
>
> Does NOT storing actual values in index make the search faster?
>
> Any pointer would be appreciated. Thanks
>
>
>
>
> --
> View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Performance%3A-Field.Store.YES-vs.-Field.Store.NO-%2B-DB-tp23987086p23987086.html
> Sent from the Lucene - General mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>
>
|
